Ban on the entry of non-Hindus in all temples in Tamil Nadu

Significant decision of Madras HC

Madurai (Tamil Nadu) – The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has issued a decree banning non-Hindus from entering all temples in Tamil Nadu, including the Dhandayudhapani Swamy Temple in Palani, Dindigul District. The Court emphasised, “Temples are not tourist spots but religious places. Hindus have a fundamental right to believe and practice their religion. Temples fall outside the purview of Article 15 of the Constitution. Therefore, barring the entry of non-Hindus to any temple cannot be said to be wrong, even if it is historical”.

The Court further said, “If non-Hindus want to enter a temple, they will have to provide a written undertaking first, in which they must state that they have faith in the Deity and are committed to following the customs and practices of Hindu Dharma”.

In this regard, the Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to install boards in all Hindu temples stating that non-Hindus are not permitted beyond the Kodi-maram (flagpole) area. This decision stems from a petition filed by D Senthilkumar of Palani, representing the Palani Hill Temple Devotees Organisation, seeking exclusive permission for Hindus to enter the Dhandayudhapani Swamy Temple.

The TN Government sought to limit the applicability of the order solely to the Dhandayudhapani Swamy Temple. However, the High Court dismissed this request, asserting, “Since this is a larger issue, this order will apply to all the temples in the State. These restrictions will ensure communal harmony among the followers of different religions and ensure peace in the society”. The petition highlighted the account of a shopkeeper who operates a store adjacent to the temple. According to the petitioner, there was an incident where certain non-Hindus attempted to enter the temple forcefully. Following a dispute with the authorities, the non-Hindus argued that the temple is a tourist spot, and nowhere is it explicitly stated that non-Hindus are prohibited from entering.

It is our duty to protect Hindu temples : HC

During the hearing, the Tamil Nadu Government contended, “Deity Murugan is worshipped even by non-Hindus who actively engage in rituals and traditions of the temple. As a secular State, the Government and the temple administration have a responsibility to uphold the constitutional rights of citizens. Prohibiting the entry of non-Hindus who hold religious beliefs infringes not only upon their religious sentiments but also violates their rights”.

The Court rejected this argument, asserting, “The authorities are concerned about the sentiments of non-Hindus who do not believe in Hindu Dharma, but what about the sentiments of Hindus ? It was also reported that in Arulmigu Brihadeeswarar Temple a group belonging to the other religion had treated the temple premises as a picnic spot and had non-vegetarian food inside the temple premises. There were reports that some Muslims had taken the Quran near the sanctum sanctorum of the Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple in Madurai and attempted to offer prayers there. These incidents absolutely interfere with the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Hindus under the Constitution. Hindus also have the fundamental right to practice and propagate their Dharma freely. So, it is our duty to maintain the sanctity of the Hindu temples as per their customs and to safeguard the temples from any kind of unethical incidents”.

The question is whether the ‘Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department’ will take action

A correspondent of Sanatan Prabhat spoke with the petitioner and the President of Hindu Temple Worshippers Society advocate Mr TR Ramesh. Mr Ramesh said that “Even if the Court has given this order, the question is whether the Tamil Nadu Government will act on it. It may go to a Division Bench of the High Court.

On the other hand, since the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of the Government has always put the judgments of the Court on the backburner, it is also a question whether
it will act on it. In any case, the Honourable Court has justified our argument and given the verdict”.